The
steady flow of international dignitaries to Israel and Palestine following
the confirmation of the new transitional Palestinian leadership has been
rather impressive. Outgoing US Secretary of State Colin Powell, outgoing
UN envoy for the Middle East Terje Roed-Larsen, British Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, German Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer, among others, swooped down on the region as if
the historic moment of Yasir Arafat's passing was the moment the region
had been waiting for. Unfortunately, not one of these diplomats, or
anyone in the Palestinian leadership for that matter, has proposed
anything beyond brushing the dust off already failed initiatives and
placing the burden for progress on the results of the upcoming Palestinian
elections.

The international euphoria surrounding the
Palestinian elections is about to quickly pass and, come January 2005, the
region will find itself exactly where the late Yasir Arafat left it -- at
a dead end.

What is urgently needed is a restructuring
of the international mediation addressing the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. Shuttle diplomacy by world powers unable or unwilling to commit
to international and humanitarian law as a foundation for Palestinian and
Israeli reconciliation is a waste of time, money and Palestinian and
Israeli lives.

The US has proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that its historic alliance with Israel, an Unholy Alliance as it
has often been called, prohibits it from being a fair and impartial
mediator. Over the years, the Israeli agenda has become a domestic US
issue and is integrally linked to US elections, US foreign policy and aid,
and the US's military-industrial complex. The infamous Oslo Peace Process
gave the US a historic chance to clean its slate of its historically blind
support to Israel. It chose not to do so and thus has lost all
creditability as a potential impartial mediator.

The US is fully aware of its tainted
projects of mediation, especially over the past ten years, and thus moved
to create the so-called "Quartet." In essence, the Quartet camouflaged
the US's dominating role in the conflict with the inclusion of the
European Union, Russian Federation and United Nations. This fuzzy,
ineffective diplomatic mechanism, which self-proclaims a mandate of
mediating the conflict, falls short of having any real international
legitimacy. Over the past four years, the Quartet quietly observed
unprecedented Israeli aggression against Palestinians and a collapse of
the peace process while doing little more than deciding how high to jump
after being ordered to do so by the US.

An alternative to the Quartet would be to
create a properly mandated UN Security Council mediation team in which no
member would be allowed to exercise veto power. The team would be
equipped with the necessary resources to bring Israel (the occupier) and
the Palestinians (the occupied) to the table with the agenda of ending the
37-year Israeli military occupation of Palestinians. The basis for an end
to the occupation would be dictated as prescribed in international and
humanitarian law. This mediation team would have the authority to deploy
a specified number of multinational peacekeeping forces should they be
required.

Such an approach would replace the existing
Quartet with a team consisting of the five Permanent Security Council
members: US, UK, France, China, and Russian Federation. Given the
particularities and history of this conflict, the European Union and the
League of Arab States, both regional coordination bodies with a vested
interest in resolution of this conflict, should be added to the team.

The wild card in this serious approach to
mediation actually materializing is the US. Why would the US and in
particular the Bush Administration accept such a mediation arrangement
that would definitely drive a wedge between the US and Israel? There are
101 reasons for the US to take a backseat in the Palestinian- Israeli
conflict, not the least being the quagmire that the US created for itself
in Iraq or the constantly increasing cost that Israel is inflicting upon
the US, both financially and politically. Sooner or later the US must
take action to remove Israel from dominating its domestic agenda. With
President Bush now reelected and able to breathe a little easier, he has
the "political capital," as he continues to state, to spend in starting to
repair some of the damage that his first term policies created in the
Middle East.

However, betting on the US or President Bush
to make a unilateral about-face is a losing bet. The international
community needs to urgently step up to the plate. A window of opportunity
opened this past summer when the International Court of Justice, in their
Advisory Opinion to the UN General Assembly, declared the "Separation
Wall" that Israel is building on occupied Palestinian lands as illegal and
must be dismantled. With political will, the international community can
convince the US that it is in its interest to create a proper mediation
team, one that can deliberate as well as act. It goes without saying that
Europe, in specific, has much to gain by distancing itself from US Middle
East foreign policy and in developing itself as a reputable mediator in
the region. The same may be said for China.

If the US refuses to cooperate on it own,
then the international community can take action regardless. Under a
well-known and tested United Nations procedure called "Uniting for Peace,"
the UN General Assembly can demand an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal
of Israel from the Occupied Palestinians lands. The General Assembly may
also call for a United Nations Peacekeeping Force to be sent to Palestine
to protect the Palestinians from the occupying power. The "Uniting for
Peace" procedure has been used before, by none other than the United
States.

Dr. Richard Cummings, an international law
professor has made similar observations regarding the UN and Israel in his
essay, Human Rights, International Law and Peace in the Middle East
(Tikkun, Jan 2004). Dr. Cummings notes,

"Failure by a United Nations member or
entity with observer status to adhere to the advisory opinion on any
matter of law could specifically give rise to a suspension by the General
Assembly of its voting rights..." Such an example is when South Africa was
in violation of an advisory opinion of the World Court and lost its voting
rights."

"Armed with an International Court of
Justice advisory opinion, the General Assembly could once and for all move
to make its opinions binding on the parties involved, thus bypassing the
Security Council that is perpetually blocked by the veto of the United
States, which it invokes in pursuance of its own agenda unrelated to the
needs of the rest of the world."

International Law must be defined and
applied by the world institutions that were established for the purpose,
and not by the existing superpower or the party to the conflict that can
hire the better public relations firms or has the stronger military. The
clear and unequivocal end to Israeli occupation, in all its forms, has the
power to bring justice, security and stability to a region on the verge of
self-destruction.

It is far past time for the international
community to stand up and take action. Enough of throwing money, food,
consultants, death, despair and destruction at the Palestinians. The time
is now for the community of nations to impose international law to end
this global tragedy.

Sam Bahour
is a Palestinian-American businessman living in the Israeli Occupied
Palestinian City of Al-Bireh/Ramallah and can be reached at
sbahour@palnet.com or
www.epalestine.com.